FEATURED
Goldwater attorney argues blocking lawsuit renders anti-DEI law meaningless
The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Arizona State University Professor Owen Anderson’s case against the school’s mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training.
Represented by the Goldwater Institute, Anderson is fighting to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked him from suing the Arizona Board of Regents. The appeals court previously blocked the professor’s lawsuit because the state statute banning discriminatory training does not explicitly outline a private right to sue, The College Fix previously reported.
During argumentation, Goldwater attorneys sought to prove that if the court’s reasoning was correct, then the statute is unenforceable and thus meaningless.
Jon Riches, Goldwater’s vice president for litigation, told the judges that the lower court failed to account for the timeless principle: “Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.”
“For decades, this court has applied that principle to find implied causes of action where a statute does not expressly create them … legislative silence begins rather than ends the inquiry,” Riches said.
ABOR attorney Thomas Ryerson countered that creating a right to sue is strictly a legislative function.
He said that such an inquiry could not proceed since the legislation’s text says nothing to imply that Professor Anderson can sue ASU. Therefore, other legal remedies, such as compliance reports from the school, are the proper remedy.
“The ability to decide when suits may be brought to court is ultimately a legislative function,” Ryerson said.
Ryerson also said any reference to implied rights of action in previous Arizona cases is irrelevant in this case.
“Considerations of background law really only go to where there is, for example, a specific interpretation of a specific statute and then the legislature uses that language again,” he said.
Following the hearing, Anderson told The College Fix that he remains confident in Riches’ response to these claims in his closing remarks.
Riches showed “clear legal thinking and engaging public speaking. He explained how my rights were violated by ASU and gave solid reasons why I do indeed have the right to bring this case,” he said.
He also believes it was difficult for the judges to fully accept ABOR’s claims that Arizona common law does not apply to his case.
He hopes for a victory that “would mean that all Arizona employees, liberal and conservative, philosophers and scientists, are protected from state institutions requiring racist training.”
Still, Anderson said that there is no way for him to know how the judges will rule.
“If I lose, all employees lose and state agencies can impose racist training with no fear of consequences,” he told The Fix.
ASU and the ASU Board of Regents did not respond to multiple requests for comments on this case.
However, ASU has previously defended the DEI training, telling AZCentral, the school “is committed to the success of each one of its students who come from all 50 states, 150 different countries and all socio-economic backgrounds.”
“To help meet that goal, consistent with [state law], ASU provides its employees Inclusive Communities training which promotes an environment of respect for all backgrounds, beliefs, and life experiences,” a spokesperson told the outlet.
Professor Anderson, an outspoken conservative who teaches philosophy, religious studies and theology at ASU, has a history of standing firm in his personal convictions despite backlash.
Anderson filed the lawsuit in 2024, alleging the DEI training for faculty violates a two-year-old state law that forbids public agencies from requiring employees to engage in training “that presents any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex,” The College Fix previously reported.
The training “included statements or concepts including, but not limited to: acknowledging the history of white supremacy and social conditions for it to exist as a structural phenomenon; how perceptions of authority and control are not granted to minoritized faculty; racism takes the form of innocuous questions or comments; and heterosexuality is privileged and goes unquestioned,” the Goldwater Institute states on its website.
In a separate case, Anderson was recently penalized in his annual performance review for alleged “bias” and “slant” toward Christianity.
The review cited anonymous student complaints as a major factor. When Anderson appealed the review, a dean upheld the evaluation, citing course materials and assessments as showing “unqualified normative language.”
Examples included questions such as “What is the highest good?” and exam prompts asking how St. Thomas Aquinas would answer certain philosophical questions.
